No, no, no dudes global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine, so how the hell we can start it?I see no more ice caps, but I think we are not responsible, if we are well ... >More like it Milankovitch cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles, by that theory Earth spins around its axis and orbits around the Sun and every ones sh*t/tilt happens, I am not saying I am understand it but interesting Now I am really going to warm swimming pool.

No, no, no dudes global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine, so how the hell we can start it?I see no more ice caps, but I think we are not responsible, if we are well ... >More like it Milankovitch cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles, by that theory Earth spins around its axis and orbits around the Sun and every ones sh*t/tilt happens, I am not saying I am understand it but interesting Now I am really going to warm swimming pool.

...nice that you would bring up changes in the earth orbit...and yes they are tied to climate change...problem is this last climate change is not related, in fact its out of sync with orbital changes...which makes the case for other factors ( like human intervention ) a greater possibility...

...and btw...we would be glad to trade some of your winter for the crap fall weather we are still having here ( its winter damn it and I want snow to ski on!!!!!...all we have now is dead grass and very occassional patches of ice...punctuated by rainstorms...yecchhh...)....

...and in a related bit of pretzel logic...the oil companies who have been kind enough to provide a big chunk of the funding for deniers studies have cranked up the price of gas almost 20% here yesterday ( and this is while the price of crude is actually dropping )...now could you please explain to me how you can be an enthusiastic spokesman for what in most people's eyes are a bunch of money grubbing earth polluting scumbags...or are the oil companies in your neck of the woods salt of earth types who are just doing the neighbourly thing and providing gas out of the goodness of their hearts...

Ok pinguins are dying outside, low temperatures about -36C in Balkans and we are warming earth, come on I just do not believe in that eco stuff. I am going to nice warm swimming pool now ;D

....awww -36C...poor little babykins...just joking...though truth be told where I grew up we would get -60...and there was a place just down the road that recorded -79...and as cold as you are getting below is something entirely different....really damn scary in fact...and of course we would train on our bikes year round...because we were hard men...and no gloves of course, those were for pussies...

I just saw in pool most attractive young lady since 2005. with most ugliest dude on earth, so everything is possible, even you dudes are smoking some strong weed :-*As I understand before earth is going to be warmer and warmer, we gonna freeze our asses next 1000 years or so, hey dudes give me some of yours stuff 8) 8)How the hell few WV, Chevy, or even Toyotas can change anything.Of course I am right dudes, I am right :-*

It's unseasonably warm here. I think we had snowfall once or twice this "winter".

Seriously, it's called GLOBAL climate change. Just because someone, somewhere, experiences a few colder than usual days is not an argument against it.

Yup.

Climate isn't weather. Global isn't your back garden. In science, Theory does not mean "a hunch that occurred to me the other day when I had a chat with my mates".

If you even need to make any of those 3 arguments, you are probably not going to agree on much, as the requirements for a starting point for an informed discussion and critical look at data are absent, but the chances are you are confronted with the type of person who has never let that stand in the way of being right.

I thought the had pointed out that most of it was exagerated after it was found that a load of number pushers from a uni in southern england had been manipulating the data so it looks like more of an anomoly that it actually is. :

Oh, I don't get angry, but I would suggest that if it interests you, you might want to find better sources, as that "a load of number pushers from a uni in southern england had been manipulating the data" is quite a bit removed from the actual tone of the conclusions of the various investigations that it (rightly) triggered.

"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" is pretty much what all investigations came back with.

What it did show was that scientists are human too, and can be as condescending and frustrated as the next guy. But in amongst all that they were still doing the science bit proper.

The one thing that annoys people who don't like the message that there are scientist who not only flag up what they are finding, but also start to suggest how things need to change. To some extent I get that, as this is often where the seat of the clinical scientist and the seat of the alarmed citizen come a bit muddled. But if you were finding that your boat is taking on more and more water, maybe we should accept a bit more that some people are starting to shout that someone should start to check the floating devices, and rather than get too annoyed about people who are maybe a bit too keen to order the safest rescue vest too quickly, that we at least take the general idea, that it is starting to look a bit wetter than we like in the basement.

If a someone says "I see a lot of smoke coming from your chimney" that is one thing. If a fireman says "there is more smoke coming from the chimney than I would expect", all of us would quickly investigate, and probably order a sweep to be on the safe side.

It is sad that politically we have become so polarized that we have stopped listening to some very well argued worries. Or have sources so politicized that they raise issues to score points, rather than raise them and attach consequences to conclusions of actually looking closer at the validity of the criticism.

This happens on both sides of the debate, btw. So the key is still to make sure that the folk you are listening to are the right ones. Would save all of us a lot of headaches, if we did.

Like here.... yes, it could have been the scandal of the century. Turns out, no, it really really wasn't. So instead of attaching a consequence to that, the same folk who wanted it to be a scandal, are ignoring the consequence of that it wasn't, and "order a cautionary sweep based on expert advise", are instead looking for another voice that will say "actually, it is just normal smoke".

Normally I have no problem with that, but this is house is all ours. Or, since it probably, in reality, won't affect me that much, our kids house. I'd like to leave a place that has foundations that are not getting anywhere near "possibly really really bad".

If you want to have a quick catch-up, wiki, on this one, has a reasonably summery to give you a good starting point:

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore are responsible for this Please dudes do not take this debate too much scientific biased.I like the theory of Czech President Vaclav Klaus he said: 'This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world,' he added; 'Communism has been replaced by the threat of an ambitious environmentalism,' So by me reds are responsible for this mass hysteria Also US Army are against and: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change by Dr. West http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/army-vs-global/Kool

Yes, there are a lot of folk on all sides of the argument i'd like to take out of the conversation, if it was up to me.

The Climate Research Unit, however, is the exact opposite of that. And despite the smear-campaign they endured (part self-inflicted, part utterly overblown), all probing investigations put that (once again) beyond doubt. Not that it will convince key doubters, I fear.

Very interesting read thanks Francois. It seems a bit like the scientists decided to call a colour red, then some theives stole the paint mix formula and said no its all lies it really gives you pink. But everyone can still see that its red.

Wiki diki; with my lack of knowledge for every thread I start, it is nice to have you around :-* List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warminghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmingIt is not black&white dudes, it is green Last year I watched local tv show about climate changes, what surprised me that 4 or 5 guests was human intervention is main reason for it, and only one very respectable academic dr.sc,mr,prof etc, called them not very nice names, especially some weather dr guys. I was surprised cos this dude has reputation and think to myself, it must be something. 8)

War and Peace the Postman , I can not argue with you cos I do not understand you, or I hardly understand your vocubulary not cos it is long (ok it is ;D) but it is so nice that you are killing me with those words, like some song or something

Oh, I don't get angry, but I would suggest that if it interests you, you might want to find better sources, as that "a load of number pushers from a uni in southern england had been manipulating the data" is quite a bit removed from the actual tone of the conclusions of the various investigations that it (rightly) triggered.

"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" is pretty much what all investigations came back with.

What it did show was that scientists are human too, and can be as condescending and frustrated as the next guy. But in amongst all that they were still doing the science bit proper.

The one thing that annoys people who don't like the message that there are scientist who not only flag up what they are finding, but also start to suggest how things need to change. To some extent I get that, as this is often where the seat of the clinical scientist and the seat of the alarmed citizen come a bit muddled. But if you were finding that your boat is taking on more and more water, maybe we should accept a bit more that some people are starting to shout that someone should start to check the floating devices, and rather than get too annoyed about people who are maybe a bit too keen to order the safest rescue vest too quickly, that we at least take the general idea, that it is starting to look a bit wetter than we like in the basement.

If a someone says "I see a lot of smoke coming from your chimney" that is one thing. If a fireman says "there is more smoke coming from the chimney than I would expect", all of us would quickly investigate, and probably order a sweep to be on the safe side.

It is sad that politically we have become so polarized that we have stopped listening to some very well argued worries. Or have sources so politicized that they raise issues to score points, rather than raise them and attach consequences to conclusions of actually looking closer at the validity of the criticism.

This happens on both sides of the debate, btw. So the key is still to make sure that the folk you are listening to are the right ones. Would save all of us a lot of headaches, if we did.

Like here.... yes, it could have been the scandal of the century. Turns out, no, it really really wasn't. So instead of attaching a consequence to that, the same folk who wanted it to be a scandal, are ignoring the consequence of that it wasn't, and "order a cautionary sweep based on expert advise", are instead looking for another voice that will say "actually, it is just normal smoke".

Normally I have no problem with that, but this is house is all ours. Or, since it probably, in reality, won't affect me that much, our kids house. I'd like to leave a place that has foundations that are not getting anywhere near "possibly really really bad".

If you want to have a quick catch-up, wiki, on this one, has a reasonably summery to give you a good starting point:

That is a great graphic on the wiki page. 3 scientists out of 100 think its all fake, so of course there'll be those that publish negative studies and of course there will be those with negative views who will flock towards them, its the same with those who believe strongly in anything.

If you are skeptical of what those with an economic interest are spoon feeding the public, or if you have bought the climate science (AGW) hook, line and sinker, ??? or you would like to read the opinions of those not so sure, :-\ this may be a good jumping off point for you. There is an overwhelming amount of information here;

If you are skeptical of what those with an economic interest are spoon feeding the public, or if you have bought the climate science (AGW) hook, line and sinker, ??? or you would like to read the opinions of those not so sure, :- this may be a good jumping off point for you. There is an overwhelming amount of information here;

I have a question about Fig. 11 in the link. It seems the author, when correcting for the PDO assumes the heat 'lingers' and that is how the trend is explained. What is the precise physical mechanism for that? It does not seem to be explained in the article itself. Could you please expand a bit on that?

If you are skeptical of what those with an economic interest are spoon feeding the public, or if you have bought the climate science (AGW) hook, line and sinker, ??? or you would like to read the opinions of those not so sure, :- this may be a good jumping off point for you. There is an overwhelming amount of information here;

I have a question about Fig. 11 in the link. It seems the author, when correcting for the PDO assumes the heat 'lingers' and that is how the trend is explained. What is the precise physical mechanism for that? It does not seem to be explained in the article itself. Could you please expand a bit on that?

I think he's borrowing that theory from Eatsterbrook, no? If that's what you are referring to here is Don Easterbrooks contact info. It's his theory. He can likely explain it better than I can. Give him a call;

This is interesting (to me anyways) as I think there is more to it than just AGW. Sun activity, El Nino, Volcanos and their impact on the PDO here;[/url]

I am struggling to think of any climate change expert who has ever suggested that climate changes are not affected by any of those forces too. Actually, we know quite a bit of those processes, and the actual influence they have (even if the assumptions we feed into our models are often "current best" estimations, the broad lines of our understanding these days is remarkably clear).

What I keep reading though, is that when they add up all that "we" know, the only way they can explain the observation we are making, if there is an additional process in play. We appear to be a "significant" additional factor, implausible as that may sound. As if the human species is capable of having the sort of lifestyle that significantly impacts the world around us.

When you said you suspected there was more to AGW than "A", you weren't seriously trying to suggest that the experts that advocate the "A" plays a significant role, had not taken this on board too? That they are suggesting it is "only A"?

The reason we arrive at "A" is because there remains a gap between what is possible now with and without "A". And the more we study and learn about the world without "A", the more it becomes obvious that it really really is "A" who is adding the fuel to this fire.

Ignoring how the media reports on what scientists find, the only thing I have heard over the last few years, is that models are substantially more refined than they were a few years back [what we have gained in knowledge over the last 2 decades is staggering], and what we keep finding is that, on the retro-active applied scale, our models are becoming increasingly able to explain the past, and on the predictive scale, the range of possible outcomes is looking more defined too, with current observations falling neatly within the "expected and predicted" range...

[Take of science hat]

... and are deeply worrying, if you understand what the suggested possible outcome range (if all else remains the same) actually means for those coming after us. Keep doing what we are doing without solving something doesn't look like a healthy option. In reality, we are accelerating "what we are doing", as a bigger part of the human population is starting to imitate our example.

Which has great and obvious advantages, hence its attraction to all of us, myself included. But, it seems, it also has a much harder to spot but colossal downside, if you are the type of person willing to accept that deciding if heart-surgery is clever, now, is best based on "the broadly accepted, and best current understanding, by experts in that field".

Which is still a hard sell in pockets of the planet, even in the nation that prides itself on the best "science around" (but -for whatever reason- also has many otherwise bright enough people refusing to listen to any of it, when it states things which are threatening to carrying-on-as-normal).

It is also the place that is most polarised politically. I so hope that that isn't the reason why people there are mistrusting informed voices. Intense dislike has never been a trustworthy guide.

Which we shouldn't. EVER. As next month might well be the coldest. You undermine your own far better argument, as some people will go "well, this month you were right, next month they are right... that means both arguments are equally worthy, not"?

"Weather here" isn't "Global climate". All you need to say. All anyone should say.

But you are right that it is odd that sometimes a certain type of argument gets uttered when it suits a purpose, "as if it matters and is part of the reason why I believe X", but when the exact opposite takes place, which ought to put the validity of X into question, it somehow doesn't acquire any significance to revisit the very though process that got someone to arrive at X in the first place.